(1) Ronald Crytzer, Smicksburg
(2) Rep.Camille "Bud" George, Demo Chair House Envir.Res. and Energy Comm.

(NOTE by BLO: the letter referred to was sent by James and Mary Ann Good and published on March 4, 2003 by the Indiana Print and Publishing Co.
Unfortunately, when clicking on the link given (see "source" ), one gets the message that the Email has expired; although a search in the archives of Indiana Press did not produce the document, it obviously stated that biosolids had been found safe for farm use by the Goods. )

(1 - Crytzer:) I would like to comment on the March 1 letter titled
"Biosolids safe for farm use."
I have reviewed research materials concerning the use of sewage sludge ("biosolids") as a soil amendment in both the United States and Europe. My readings revealed that studies have been done on plants grown on sludge-amended soils - and animals raised on food grown in the soil. However, I could find no studies on people living or working in areas of sewage sludge use.

Why haven't such studies been done? The complaints are there, but the studies are absent.

The greatest danger of sludge dumping, experts say, is that no one really knows what is in it. The concentration of contaminants in sewage sludge can change daily from load to load, yet a weekly analysis of the sludge process by the processing companies is considered frequent.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency offers a cautionary statement relative to sewage-sludge use: "Because analysis of the sewage sludge is the responsibility of the operator of the municipal-treatment plant, landowners and other communities considering acceptance of sludge should insist that sufficient testing has been conducted to assure that the sludge is suitable for the intended beneficial use."

Read the above paragraph again and answer these questions: Who must insist that sufficient testing has been conducted, and who is responsible for the testing?

According to an article by syndicated columnists Jack Anderson and Jan Moller published in The Indiana Gazette, Dec. 30, 1998, a 1993 EPA report found that 54 percent of the 30,000 industrial users nationwide were in "significant noncompliance" with waste pre-treatment limits or reporting requirements, or both.

But, according to Anderson, rather than cracking down on such practices, the EPA has orchestrated and funded a massive public-relations program to "educate the public" about the "beneficial uses" of sludge.

Anderson went further to say that he was surprised to learn that the EPA's top sludge regulator, Alan Rubin, had been lent to the Water Environment Federation, the sludge industry's lobbying and public-relations arm, in 1995 while the EPA continued to pay half his salary.

When asked by Anderson about the dangers of sludge, Rubin responded, "In all of the years I have worked on this, I've never seen a documented case (facts are gathered, report is written and peer reviewed by qualified scientist) of a human getting sick from or an animal dying from biosolids or exposure to biosolids." A very convenient "backdrop" statement.

A Jan. 22 Associated Press report revealed that private laboratories are increasingly being caught falsifying test results for water supplies, petroleum products, underground tanks and soil, hampering the government's ability to ensure that Americans are protected by environmental laws.

David Uhlmann, chief of the Justice Department's environmental-crimes section, said, "In recent years, what has come to our attention is that outside (non-government) labs are oftentimes in bed with the people who hired them, and conspired to commit environmental crime."

Just remember, should your water source or your property be devalued or destroyed by contaminants contained in sewage sludge spread by your neighbor or on your neighbor's property, you cannot hold the licensed sludge-processing company liable.

The landowner who accepted the sludge is responsible for the damages and/or cleanup, and he may not have the same community interests and values that you have.

Ronald Crytzer

©Indiana Printing & Publishing Co. 2003
(2 - Rep. Camille George:) Biosolids Anything but Safe
March 12, 2003
James and Mary Ann Good know first-hand that "There are many misinformed citizens as to what biosolids are and their use as fertilizer in the U.S."
Their comments in the March 4 letter to the editor, "Biosolids safe for farm use," (please see BLO NOTE on top of this page) are indisputable evidence of the misinformation.

No one can ever claim that no illnesses have stemmed from land application of sludge. The EPA's Office of Inspector General says the EPA can't even assure the public that current land application practices "are protective of human health and the environment."

Closer to home, Dr. Stanford Tackett of Indiana University of Pennsylvania describes sludge as being "closer to the definition of a toxic waste than it is to fertilizer."

Pennsylvanians have every right to know what is being deposited on our lands and the safety of those deposits. Accordingly, I have reintroduced legislation - House Bills 252, 253, 254 and 255 - that are designed to improve oversight and protections over the application of sewage sludge.

Hard-won efforts by municipalities to gain some semblance of local control over sludge applications also must be protected.

The Goods are correct in stating that public education is vital. However, stating that biosolids are safe doesn't make them so, and evidence is mounting daily that they are anything but safe.

Rep. Camille "Bud" George
D-74, Clearfield

(Rep. George is Democratic chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee.)

BLO fecit 20040305 - return to : Index PA Sludge Issues